Cool stuff in the world of Disability Studies, Geography, and History. Based at Temple University in Philadelphia, with contributors from coast to coast. Check out our 'Notable Blogs' list below - your portal to the disability blog world.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Heroes in our midst

Disability Studies scholars need to do better in educating the public about outstanding Disability Studies scholars and activists who are responsible for major social change, not only change for people with disabilities, but change for the betterment of society in general.

Within the past six weeks, two luminaries who made incredible contributions to the understanding of human behavior and the variables of repression which undermine human diversity died. Harlan Hahn and Hariet McBride Johnson were two extraodinary scholars and activists who recently passed away. Hahn, a recognized professor of Political Science at the University of Southern California wrote prolifically on the underpinnings of social dominance, deconstructing the causes of oppression and descrimination. He revealed the ways in which economics, politics, and social policy are influenced by principles of privilege to create inequality and disadvantage.

Hariet McBride Johnson, a lawyer that could match wits with any Clarence Darrow, was not only an activist for Disability Rights but for Human Rights in general. While in college, she actively participated in many social causes including the fight for fair and equitable trade practices in underdeveloped countries. The most memorable accomplishment of Johnson, for many of us, was her assuming the responsibility of single-handedly debating Princeton's Chair of the Ethics department. Jonhson and Peter Singer debated the issue of whether or not it was socially responsible and rational to extend extraordinary medical means to save the lives of severely disabled newborns. Johnson, though physically contracted by a neuro-muscular condition, delivered her arguments in as straight and eloquent a fashion as any great orator of past and present. With reserve, integrity, and passion, she expounded the rationales upholding the values of human life.

One may say that these two individuals would only be of interest and concern to disabled people, but I would argue that the work they have painstakingly achieved in their lives in terms of expanding social intellect ,which translates into policy that affects people's everyday life, may very well touch each of us, disabled or not, in positive and unexpected ways.

29 comments:

I hate to be cranky but writing that "disability scholars need to do better in educating the public" is a gross understatement. In fact I would suggest no more than a tiny minority of disability scholars do anything to educate the general public. The scholarship produced by disability scholars is intellectually rigorous but devoid of practical application. Given this, there is a great need to be both a disability scholar and a disability activist at the same time. I have the utmost respect for disability activist and scholars and think they need to combine forces. Until this happens the general public will not pay attention much less understand the social and practical issues that too often prevent disabled people from fully participating in society.

William, I couldn't agree more with you and thanks for your constructive critique. Somehow, we have to find common ground. I consider myself both a scholar and activist, but I don't think my work would be at all significant if I didn't have real experience in the grass-roots community. I would encourage you to post your thoughts about this matter on the blog so that it can be readily read by those who just look at the blog without noticing the comments.

Finding common ground will not be easy. Disability scholars and disability activists are passionate people accustom to defending themselves and their views. I am not sure my views as an outsider would be well received. I am not a member of the SDS though I have in the past contributed to DSQ, Counter Punch and Ragged Edge. Perhaps a good starting point it would be to open access to scholarly material. For example, no activist I know can afford to read DSQ. The same can be said for the majority of disabled people who remain unemployed in large numbers. In return, perhaps disability activists can incorporate a rigorous academic component to their activism via prepared written statements authored by disability studies scholars.

I have been reading Harriet's memoir. I do hold the greatest respect for her and in fact, made my first-year comp students read her discourse with Singer. However, like all of us, I am finding that she had her blind spots. She seemed naive about race and class issues. She refers to her 'black maids.' She also, in college, hired a 'attendant' and charged her rent! Is this a common practice?

Great post. To respond to Ms. Bartlett, I agree to a degree. I think if each of us grows more sympathetic to our own causes without considering what is happening around us (ie. referring to her 'black maids) then we really have no leverage in asking for what we want in life. In this case it is consideration and empathy for the Disability Rights Movement. Perhaps, that is what we should consider when we call for a more thorough job of educating the public about disabilities. It is tempered tolerance and acceptance that we ask for, for all races, all disabilities and all people to live our lives with an understanding of the 'other' that is different from ourselves in society.

Thank you for your inquiry. I can't speak for Johnson but I know that she was very politically aware, which leads me to think about a discussion that my colleagues and I were having about labels used in the disability community. The whole plethora of language can be very confusing and paradoxical. Using some words to describe people is an experience that becomes more complex as we evolve.

Having said that, the self-naming and imposed naming of others is a conundrum that I don't think will ever be resolved. Just ask - in the disability community there are people who prefer person-first language and then there are those of us who are comfortable in being more direct and descriptive. I think it is the same with other minorities. Many women of color prefer to be called black women as opposed to African American. They prefer that direct claiming of an identity which is being self-claimed and embraced as a positive identity. I don't know if you were having concerns about her calling her assistants black or if it was "maids" or if it was the pairing of both words, but in my mind both words have integrity in and of themselves. Would you have been troubled if she'd said "Italian maids" or "white maids"? And what does that say about people who have the role of a maid? Are they any less valued? And is their work of lower necessity?

I think that in finding certain words or phrases offensive we are unintentionally devaluing the social roles and identities which don't need to be euphemized.

As far as the roommate/assistant, I think this is a normal practice to charge rent and then pay the assistant for her services. In this way, the roles are kept distinct. Just my thoughts.

What is interesting about the memoir, and people might miss this slight distinction, is that wen McBryde discusses servants she refers to them as black, In a later chapter, when she is looking for their vote for councilwoman, she largely refers to people as African=American. Why is there distinction within the text to refer to people as 'black' in the context of church and servants and African-Americans within the context of the voting bloc. What I am speaking of, as you note, are distinctions and examinations of language. I just feel that McBryde -- or her editors as she was not a writer, per se -- should have been more aware of these inconsistencies and what they may represent.

In answer to the 'maid' question, yes, yes, and yes. However, the issue is that when McBryde writes about her childhood, she takes the situation for granted seemingly in the text. It might have been helpful foe her to acknowledge that while, according to society, she was not privledged in one way, she was in another. I think this is an important note to make, and one which she glossed over -- at least here. It opens her up to criticism so that an idiot like Singer can come in and say, 'well your family had the means to support you,'

I think Harriet McBryde was a great activist and in no way am I reducing her strides. In this forum, I think it is pretty taken for granted that McBryde was a great women. But, I think it is interesting and necessary to look at people in a academic, full way rather than just assign them hero status.

The attendant issue is very confusing to me. An attendant can not be a roommate or a friend. Like a nanny or housekeeper, it seems to me that an attendant is an 'employee' therefore, you are engaged in a power structure. It would never occur to me that an employee would be charged rent, although I admit to be vastly ignorant of the subject.

I just reread hthis comment: I think that in finding certain words or phrases offensive we are unintentionally devaluing the social roles and identities which don't need to be euphemized.

I think this is a bit unfair in that it's an attempt to shut down any criticisms one might have of Johnson.

I find, as a PWD, that people have basically two modes about PWD: they ignore you and the issues completely or they are loath to say anything critical -- which you can see if you look at the blog of the poet Paul Guest.

I am worried that the second also happens WITHIN the disability community.

I think it's great that, with Johnson's death, I can find my way to her book and come to both positive and negative opinions about her -- in the same way I would about any so-called able-bodied public figure. Ultimately, I think this is what she might want.

The exchange of views between Carol and Jennifer is interesting and important. I have read Johnson memoir many times and never picked up on the dichotomy Jennifer identified. This is an astute observation worthy of discussion, one that I do not think Carol is trying suppress. What struck me is the issue of privilege and harkens back to my comment and call for the unification of disability rights activists and disability scholars. Johnson seemed to be one of the few scholar/activists that was respected in both camps. A critical discussion of Johnson's work by activists and scholars might enable the two groups to find common ground. The goals of activists and scholars are not that different in the larger picture--equality for all people, those with and those without a disability.

I so agree with the premise on which you are critiqueing. So often, especially in memorializing, we illuminate the grandeur of the person and unintentionally or even intentionally skim over inconsistencies or biases. I know that Johnson would want to be given a balanced representation. I just wish she could've been able to address the race and class issues you raised.

The word "shanzhai" is very popular in China. It is industry phenomenon of imitation, high quality and low price. Moreover, cell phones are the representative of them.The global financial crisis led to a significant shrinkage of assets for people. "china wholesale" demonstrate the might. most of them would like buy the cheap cell phones now .

The word "shanzhai" is very popular in China. It is industry phenomenon of imitation, high quality and low price. Moreover, cell phones are the representative of them.The global financial crisis led to a significant shrinkage of assets for people. "china wholesale" demonstrate the might. most of them would like buy the cheap cell phones now .